Wikipedia

Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment/2nd Red Banner Army

< Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history‎ | Assessment
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Article promoted by Anotherclown (talk) via MilHistBot (talk) 20:31, 1 January 2018 (UTC) « Return to A-Class review list[reply]

2nd Red Banner Army edit

Nominator(s): Kges1901 (talk)

2nd Red Banner Army (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Toolbox

I am nominating this article for A-Class review because I believe it meets the A-class criteria and would like to improve it as far as I can get it. This article is about a Soviet combined arms army with a short history – it only saw combat in the Soviet invasion of Manchuria, being formed just before World War II in the Soviet Far East, and was disbanded shortly after the surrender of Japan. This article was recently promoted to GA. Kges1901 (talk) 02:53, 23 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comments Support from Indy beetle edit

  • Are there any stated reasons as to why the army was created? Specific strategic or operational necessity?
  • Done. I missed a sentence in the original Russian source that I rewrote the article from. Kges1901 (talk) 11:15, 23 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • This article bleeds red(pun not intended)link. The redlinks to the various fortified regions seem unnecessary.
  • I have removed the fortified region links. They will probably be covered in the list on the fortified region article, although I believe that there is enough on the 101st for a standalone article, given that it saw combat. Kges1901 (talk) 11:38, 23 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • "the army covered the border around Blagoveshchensk and sent reinforcements to the active army fighting on the Eastern Front..." To what unit does "the active army" refer to? That could be mentioned by name, or it would sound better to say "the active forces".
  • Changed to active forces. Active army is a general Soviet term for troops in the frontline area. Kges1901 (talk) 11:15, 23 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Have added a photograph of Ivan Konev and of the Amur crossing in 1945. Khalkhin Gol is not relevant because the army was not actually involved as it was only elements of the army which fought under the control of a different command.Kges1901 (talk) 11:38, 23 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Postwar, the army briefly became part of..." and "Postwar, the army was disbanded..." The word "Postwar" is used here as a prepositional phrase. Postwar is an adjective. Even the word "post" is rarely used as a preposition. Would sound better as "After the war..."

-Indy beetle (talk) 04:59, 23 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

All my comments have been addressed and I find the article to be compliant with the A-class criteria. -Indy beetle (talk) 23:24, 23 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from AustralianRupert edit

Support: G'day, haven't had a full look yet, as it is late here. I have a couple of suggestions at the moment: AustralianRupert (talk) 12:22, 26 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • not sure if I missed it, or not but could you include a rough strength/size for the formation? This could be included in the article and infobox?
  • I haven't been able to find any information on its manpower strength but Glantz gives equipment figures for the Manchurian operation. Kges1901 (talk) 12:27, 27 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • "fall of 1945": best to avoid seasonal terms, as it can be confusing to editors from different hemispheres. Suggest just using the month
  • this seems a bit repetitious: "during the invasion. During the invasion..." Suggest rewording slightly
  • citation 41: the translation should use square brackets for consistency with Citations 9 & 30
  • in the Sources section, "Commanders and command staff of the Red Army 1940–1941" --> should use title case caps, i.e. "Commanders and Command Staff of the Red Army 1940–1941"
  • I will come back a bit later and complete the review

Continuing review: AustralianRupert (talk) 03:54, 27 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • suggest adding a third level subheader below World War II, possibly "Garrison duties in the Far East" or something similar
  • In the Composition section, if possible, I suggest providing a second snapshot focusing on a later date (maybe late 1944 or early 1945)
  • Would it be more aesthetically appealing if I used Infobox command structure to place the composition directly in the text? Kges1901 (talk) 12:27, 27 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • If you intend to include this information in the one section, I probably wouldn't use the template. However, if you intend to split it across different sections (amongst the prose), it could probably work. I used this once on the 3rd Division (Australia) article and I think it worked ok there in that manner. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 13:28, 27 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reformatted using template in body, added composition for 1 April 1945.Kges1901 (talk) 14:56, 27 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The operational groups slowly advanced south, capturing Nencheng and Peian on 20 and 21 August. The Kwantung Army formally surrendered on 18 August...": suggest maybe switching these two sentences to maintain chronological flow
  • in the Composition section, suggest that a few more of the units could be linked, e.g. 69th and 59th
  • move the link for Glantz from the Further reading section to the Sources section

Support Comments by Sturmvogel_66 edit

  • No DABs, external links OK
  • Images appropriately licensed.
  • List of commanders seems redundant since you've got them integrated into the text.
  • The army's composition remained constant for most of 1944; the 342nd Rifle Division was formed in the army in late November of that year.[28] In December, the 355th Rifle Division was formed in the army. The army's four rifle brigades were used to form the 342nd and the 355th in late 1944. Shouldn't these sentences be combined?
  • Link self-propelled artillery, regiment, antitank, artillery, company, engineer sapper and battalion on first use.
  • with defending the Blagoveshchensk area from Japanese naval incursions in cooperation with the Amur Flotilla's Zee-Bureysk Brigade This threw me on the first reading because I immediately thought of an amphibious landing along the coast, not a river crossing. Rephrase, please.
  • Due to equipment shortages If you mean bridging equipment, say so.
  • Forward units continued to engage forward positions Too many "forward"s in close proximity; change the latter to: Japanese advanced defenses or positions
  • detachment from the 269th Regiment Japanese I presume? What type of regiment?
  • Infantry. I used shortened names for the Japanese units after first mention. Kges1901 (talk) 19:47, 31 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • An independent mixed brigade. I used shortened names for Japanese units after first mention. Kges1901 (talk) 19:47, 31 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Military_history/Assessment/2nd_Red_Banner_Army&oldid=818135965"